Legal or not, it does show quite a bit of contempt towards people to install it. I'd rather not associate with a shopkeeper or his store if they so obviously divide people only into those that give them money and those that do not.
And that's the beauty of freedom of association, no one says that you should be required to patronize this shopkeeper's store. You're free to spend your money elsewhere. If enough people agree with you, he'll go out of business - or he'll take it down.
Do we really want a world where people deploy such things to drive select non customers away?
Yes, first they have the freedom to associate with whomever they wish. Second, they have the right to defend their property as they see fit, would you rather they put rock-salt in the arse of the offending hoodlums?
Yes, but scientifically falsifiable has a very specific definition - that second one isn't it. If we used that definition, then every kook's conspiracy theory would be scientific. I mean, concievably they could be proven correct too, it's just highly unlikely.
ID can definitely be proven true. Find the creator. Is it unlikely? Yes, but it is *possible*.
That's not what falsifiable means. Falsifiable means that it can be proven false. ID makes no claims that can be proven false, and therefore cannot be tested.
We have a word for an "untested theory"... we call them "hypotheses". Hypotheses don't get taught in school... because hypothetically, the tests could prove them false! Furthermore, ID doesn't even qualify as a "hypothesis", because its claims are not falsifiable!
They've threatened it, but they won't. They're incapable of taking the island. The Chinese Navy doesn't have enough amphibious transports to put enough troops onto the island fast enough, air drop of troops only works when you have air superiority (the Chinese wouldn't, even without our help), and the majority of their troop transports are from the fifties and sixties - they're likely to lose a significant percentage of the invading force on mechandical trouble alone (lose in the sense that they won't be available for invasion). The best the Chinese can do is missile barrage, but that historically has never been a useful tactic for forcing the surrender of an enemy.
The Chinese threats of invasion are sabre-rattling, to keep the Taiwanese off-balance, and to force us to decide which China we support. Officially, we don't recognize the Taiwanese as a sovereign nation, so if we were to intercede on their behalf, we'd risk war with China. It wouldn't hurt us militarily, but we do a lot of business there. Though, this armchair quarterback seriously doubts the Chinese resolve on the matter of Taiwan. The United States is their largest market for manufactured goods, if they were to push us we might not capitulate, and then their economy is right fucked for a bit.
Price-matching isn't about the consumer, it's about competitors. When a retail store announces that it will match prices, it is telling its competitors that it wants to end a price-war. When the competitors follow suit, the price-matching serves as a mechanism so the corporations in question can see who is breaking the "terms" of their cartel action. In essence, price matching is collusion to keep prices higher.
Doctor makes a mistake as all human people do. Patient feels entitled to put a monetary price on mistake, wins in court. Doctor's insurance rates skyrocket, costs are passed down to all patients.
As opposed to the opposite situation which would result in:
The doctor is incompetent and breaks something. Patient has no recourse under the law for renumeration. Patient then has to see another doctor to fix what the first one broke, in addition to what the first was supposed to fix in the first place. Health care costs skyrocket because people have to pay multiple times, due to increased bankrupcy for the inability to pay for the cost of care, costs are passed out to society in general.
I'm sorry you felt I was being antagonistic. I didn't feel anything I was saying was derogatory, I suppose you could take my stating that your argument is wrong as antagonistic - but that wasn't my intention.
The demand on local infrastructure is made by shipping companies, not by an extra-state business. Road repair expenses are recouped by tolls and gasoline taxes, those costs to the shipping company are passed on to the business - extra-state as well as local. So your argument is disingenuous, you're actually suggesting that the governments double-dip against outside business. No matter how you cut it, the States don't have the authority to demand that outside businesses collect and remit sales tax to them.
Businesses from outside the taxing-locale have no responsibility to collect for the government. Those within the locale collect it as part of the social contract which grants them services in exchange for taking on some of the duties of government. I've never argued that it's too difficult to collect and remit taxes to every locale, I'm arguing that it's not the responsibility of my hypothetical business to collect for your town because you're not giving me anything in exchange. Businesses within your town have exchanged services for a partial duty of government, those extra-state businesses have not, and therefore forcing them to collect is a State infringement of Congressional power.
They have no responsibility to enforce the law. So, they should not collect the tax. If a locale cannot properly enforce their tax-laws, maybe they should rethink the way they tax.
What they do is redirect tax revenues away from people who do put putting those people who do have to charge the tax at a disadvantage.
Boo, fucking, hoo. That's inter-state commercial competition, and only the Congress has the ability to regulate interstate commerce. If your state is being "unfairly" (pshhh...) "losing" tax revenues to cheaper locales, then lower your taxes or find other ways to compete. It is not the responsibility of a business or individual in another state to prop up your state's failing business model.
What demands does an out-of-state company place upon the local infrastructure? They don't require police or fire protection from the local infrastructure, they don't use the telecommunications, they don't even use the roads that your hypothetical "local retailer". Since they require no services from the government local to the purchaser, why should they be required to collect and pay taxes for those services?
Slashdot Mirror
Legal or not, it does show quite a bit of contempt towards people to install it. I'd rather not associate with a shopkeeper or his store if they so obviously divide people only into those that give them money and those that do not.
And that's the beauty of freedom of association, no one says that you should be required to patronize this shopkeeper's store. You're free to spend your money elsewhere. If enough people agree with you, he'll go out of business - or he'll take it down.
Do we really want a world where people deploy such things to drive select non customers away?
Yes, first they have the freedom to associate with whomever they wish. Second, they have the right to defend their property as they see fit, would you rather they put rock-salt in the arse of the offending hoodlums?
Yes, but scientifically falsifiable has a very specific definition - that second one isn't it. If we used that definition, then every kook's conspiracy theory would be scientific. I mean, concievably they could be proven correct too, it's just highly unlikely.
ID can definitely be proven true. Find the creator. Is it unlikely? Yes, but it is *possible*.
That's not what falsifiable means. Falsifiable means that it can be proven false. ID makes no claims that can be proven false, and therefore cannot be tested.
I never said you weren't, but your argument that they should ban certain groups hinged upon your disapproval of the supposed action of those groups.
We have a word for an "untested theory"... we call them "hypotheses". Hypotheses don't get taught in school... because hypothetically, the tests could prove them false! Furthermore, ID doesn't even qualify as a "hypothesis", because its claims are not falsifiable!
I strongly disapprove of any drug use...
What else should they ban based on your disapproval?
Much like how people refer to individuals on Slashdot as male...
That's more due to the vagaries of the English language than Slashdot demographics, since "he" is the generic pronoun.
China attacks Taiwan
They've threatened it, but they won't. They're incapable of taking the island. The Chinese Navy doesn't have enough amphibious transports to put enough troops onto the island fast enough, air drop of troops only works when you have air superiority (the Chinese wouldn't, even without our help), and the majority of their troop transports are from the fifties and sixties - they're likely to lose a significant percentage of the invading force on mechandical trouble alone (lose in the sense that they won't be available for invasion). The best the Chinese can do is missile barrage, but that historically has never been a useful tactic for forcing the surrender of an enemy.
The Chinese threats of invasion are sabre-rattling, to keep the Taiwanese off-balance, and to force us to decide which China we support. Officially, we don't recognize the Taiwanese as a sovereign nation, so if we were to intercede on their behalf, we'd risk war with China. It wouldn't hurt us militarily, but we do a lot of business there. Though, this armchair quarterback seriously doubts the Chinese resolve on the matter of Taiwan. The United States is their largest market for manufactured goods, if they were to push us we might not capitulate, and then their economy is right fucked for a bit.
Source to my Chinese military assertions.
Whatever happened to caveat emptor?
Price-matching isn't about the consumer, it's about competitors. When a retail store announces that it will match prices, it is telling its competitors that it wants to end a price-war. When the competitors follow suit, the price-matching serves as a mechanism so the corporations in question can see who is breaking the "terms" of their cartel action. In essence, price matching is collusion to keep prices higher.
Doctor makes a mistake as all human people do. Patient feels entitled to put a monetary price on mistake, wins in court. Doctor's insurance rates skyrocket, costs are passed down to all patients.
As opposed to the opposite situation which would result in:
The doctor is incompetent and breaks something. Patient has no recourse under the law for renumeration. Patient then has to see another doctor to fix what the first one broke, in addition to what the first was supposed to fix in the first place. Health care costs skyrocket because people have to pay multiple times, due to increased bankrupcy for the inability to pay for the cost of care, costs are passed out to society in general.
Yeah, there's a better plan.
... give a whit about elegant, readable, maintainable, extensible solutions.
What the fuck is a solution? Is it hardware, software, a suite, a support package? How can someone give a whit about it, if no one knows what it is?
...forgo those fancy tools and port scan from Emacs from Vi
There, fixed that for you too.
He was born with bone claws. The adamantium only coated them, just like his skeleton.
... And the vice-champion of Robocup was in Footloose with Kevin Bacon.
I'm sorry you felt I was being antagonistic. I didn't feel anything I was saying was derogatory, I suppose you could take my stating that your argument is wrong as antagonistic - but that wasn't my intention.
The demand on local infrastructure is made by shipping companies, not by an extra-state business. Road repair expenses are recouped by tolls and gasoline taxes, those costs to the shipping company are passed on to the business - extra-state as well as local. So your argument is disingenuous, you're actually suggesting that the governments double-dip against outside business. No matter how you cut it, the States don't have the authority to demand that outside businesses collect and remit sales tax to them.
Businesses from outside the taxing-locale have no responsibility to collect for the government. Those within the locale collect it as part of the social contract which grants them services in exchange for taking on some of the duties of government. I've never argued that it's too difficult to collect and remit taxes to every locale, I'm arguing that it's not the responsibility of my hypothetical business to collect for your town because you're not giving me anything in exchange. Businesses within your town have exchanged services for a partial duty of government, those extra-state businesses have not, and therefore forcing them to collect is a State infringement of Congressional power.
They have no responsibility to enforce the law. So, they should not collect the tax. If a locale cannot properly enforce their tax-laws, maybe they should rethink the way they tax.
What they do is redirect tax revenues away from people who do put putting those people who do have to charge the tax at a disadvantage.
Boo, fucking, hoo. That's inter-state commercial competition, and only the Congress has the ability to regulate interstate commerce. If your state is being "unfairly" (pshhh...) "losing" tax revenues to cheaper locales, then lower your taxes or find other ways to compete. It is not the responsibility of a business or individual in another state to prop up your state's failing business model.
What demands does an out-of-state company place upon the local infrastructure? They don't require police or fire protection from the local infrastructure, they don't use the telecommunications, they don't even use the roads that your hypothetical "local retailer". Since they require no services from the government local to the purchaser, why should they be required to collect and pay taxes for those services?
Huh... I didn't know that. Thanks. :)
Negative reinforcement seems to be in order. Get a shock collar, and every time your roommate drinks alcohol give him a little zap. He'll thank you.
Do you like to call on bad parsing of the question?
Tell me, machine, what "moves" you ??
A car... no wait... an airplane!